Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taaooma (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taaooma

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not see notability here, and the professional roles are ones where it's very difficult to provide reliable evidence--and very difficult to write a non=promotional article.

The awards are mere PR, like all ...under... awards, and they pretty much rely of each other for who gets listed. the Gage awards judging from their web page are a concsiously designed PR device,

The refs other than the awards are promotional interviews, and therefore unreliable, no matter where published. DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep several RS: Guardian Nigeria (not an interview), Christian Science monitor (includes some quotes, but not an interview). Lots of coverage in BellaNaija and Legit.ng beyond that cited in this article. The image is an obvious copyvio, however, and should be deleted immediately. Furius (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — @
WP:AFC. I’m leaning on delete but I am afraid I may be subconsciously biased, so for now I’d allow “non involved” editors to input their rationales and see how this plays out. Celestina007 (talk) 00:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per DGG. Promotionalism at its finest not necessarily indicative of a problem with the creator but the sourcing itself is problematic. Celestina007 (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Would this CNN source be considered a promotional one? source — Preceding unsigned comment added by PantheonRadiance (talk • contribs) 03:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It appears there may be three reliable sources. Further discussion regarding depth of coverage and analysis of independence and reliability should commence. Three independent, in-depth, reliable sources meet most editor's definition of GNG, but I see no consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
WP:ANYBIO as they have continuously been used to define Instagram online comedy in Nigeria as their mention on CNN here weighed on that. Also the multiple RS like Pulse, Dailytrust, The Nation and many others makes them deserve inclusion. Maybe few cleanup but subject is indeed notable. Kaizenify (talk) 09:42, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.